NationStates

Redrafted from: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=473616
Same author, different nation

The World Assembly,

Recognising the efforts made in GA #472, Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc to prevent unnecessary sterilisation of minors;

Asserting that the purpose of independent review can be achieved with individual qualified medical professionals;

Concerned that Institutional Review Boards, as defined by GA#111, are bureaucratic institutions that are not required to be staffed with medical experts and thus serve no real purpose, except wasting the state's resources in setting up and maintaining such institutions;

Worried that requiring the permission of an Independent Review Board could unnecessarily prolong decision making in an emergency or in time-sensitive cases;

Further alarmed that clause two allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission (WACC) to create further regulations on behalf of the World Assembly, without needing to consult the will of the combined member nations;

Convinced that this Assembly should not pass legislation that empowers committees to create secondary legislation, as there is little supervision, if at all, over the actions these committees make;

Confident that regulations to ensure the proper review procedures for the sterilisation of minors can be instituted by further legislation without reducing the relevancy of member nations in the decisions concerning their own future;

Hereby repeals GA#472 "Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc".

ngl quite epic

OOC: Should likely have been "actions ... committees take" instead of make.

Why submitted right away?

The PRESIDING OFFICER: It being the appropriate hour, the Secretary will redesignate the resolution now pending before the General Assembly.

The GENERAL ASSEMBLY SECRETARY reported the title of the resolution:

Repeal “Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc”, a resolution to repeal Resolution GA#472, proposed by the Avo❤️Avo of Gorundu.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: Voting on this resolution will end in four days.

I voted against the proposal due to its non-delegation doctrine argument. If that were not present, I would have voted in favour of the proposal due to the target resolution's redundancy.

So, if this passes does it mean we can sterilize minors for being terrible people?

Flarmsburg wrote:So, if this passes does it mean we can sterilize minors for being terrible people?

OOC: Presumably, if this passes, it will be quickly replaced by a new resolution to similar effect, possibly with the provisions that the author of this repeal objects to removed.

Barfleur wrote:

Flarmsburg wrote:So, if this passes does it mean we can sterilize minors for being terrible people?

OOC: Presumably, if this passes, it will be quickly replaced by a new resolution to similar effect, possibly with the provisions that the author of this repeal objects to removed.

That won’t be needed, see: 486

Given the existence of 486, we consider the secondary legislation argument sufficient reason to vote in favour of passage of the repeal.

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:Given the existence of 486, we consider the secondary legislation argument sufficient reason to vote in favour of passage of the repeal.

Herrera drinks a sip of mineral water, puts down the glass and clears his throat: “We agree with what was said by the previous representative, so this Delegation will vote in favor of this proposal".

Mr. Carlos Alejandro Herrera.
Permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of Eluney to the World Assembly.

Gorundu wrote:Redrafted from: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=473616
Same author, different nation

The World Assembly,

Recognising the efforts made in GA #472, Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc to prevent unnecessary sterilisation of minors;

Asserting that the purpose of independent review can be achieved with individual qualified medical professionals;

Concerned that Institutional Review Boards, as defined by GA#111, are bureaucratic institutions that are not required to be staffed with medical experts and thus serve no real purpose, except wasting the state's resources in setting up and maintaining such institutions;

Worried that requiring the permission of an Independent Review Board could unnecessarily prolong decision making in an emergency or in time-sensitive cases;

Further alarmed that clause two allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission (WACC) to create further regulations on behalf of the World Assembly, without needing to consult the will of the combined member nations;

Convinced that this Assembly should not pass legislation that empowers committees to create secondary legislation, as there is little supervision, if at all, over the actions these committees make;

Confident that regulations to ensure the proper review procedures for the sterilisation of minors can be instituted by further legislation without reducing the relevancy of member nations in the decisions concerning their own future;

Hereby repeals GA#472 "Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc".

The Untecnan ambassador views the document, and gives a stern look at the writer. "Ambassador, the legislation you are trying to repeal is supported by my nation. No support on this.

So, this reform is trying to repeal a law which does not sterilizes minors?

In other words... if this legislation passes.... it would be allowing minors to be sterilized?

Betances wrote:So, this reform is trying to repeal a law which does not sterilizes minors?

In other words... if this legislation passes.... it would be allowing minors to be sterilized?

Which could lead to lower world populations. Children should be able to grow up and reproduce, and not have that choice taken away from them. There should be age limits and consent agreements, but not this.

Untecna wrote:

Betances wrote:So, this reform is trying to repeal a law which does not sterilizes minors?

In other words... if this legislation passes.... it would be allowing minors to be sterilized?

Which could lead to lower world populations. Children should be able to grow up and reproduce, and not have that choice taken away from them. There should be age limits and consent agreements, but not this.

"Ambassador, as other delegates have pointed out, GA 486 still exists so no, you won't be able to force sterilization of minors even if this repeal passes."

Ardiveds wrote:

Untecna wrote:Which could lead to lower world populations. Children should be able to grow up and reproduce, and not have that choice taken away from them. There should be age limits and consent agreements, but not this.

"Ambassador, as other delegates have pointed out, GA 486 still exists so no, you won't be able to force sterilization of minors even if this repeal passes."

THIS one, regardless of the choice, allows minors to be removed of the right to have chidren.

Untecna wrote:

Ardiveds wrote:"Ambassador, as other delegates have pointed out, GA 486 still exists so no, you won't be able to force sterilization of minors even if this repeal passes."

THIS one, regardless of the choice, allows minors to be removed of the right to have chidren.

How?

Honeydewistania wrote:

Untecna wrote:THIS one, regardless of the choice, allows minors to be removed of the right to have chidren.

How?

Jesus...

Can. You. Read? This proposal is not supported by us because it allows those under the age of adulthood (not sure if it defines that), or minors, to be sterilized, therefore meaning they can, yes, choose to not have children when they get older. It could potentially drop worldwide populations by such a margin that we could see it's effects almost immediately.

Untecna wrote:

Honeydewistania wrote:How?

Jesus...

Can. You. Read? This proposal is not supported by us because it allows those under the age of adulthood (not sure if it defines that), or minors, to be sterilized, therefore meaning they can, yes, choose to not have children when they get older. It could potentially drop worldwide populations by such a margin that we could see it's effects almost immediately.

OOC: Did. you. read. GA. 486? Why would underage people suddenly decide to have themselves sterilized?

Flarmsburg wrote:So, if this passes does it mean we can sterilize minors for being terrible people?

Yes.

Untecna wrote:

Betances wrote:So, this reform is trying to repeal a law which does not sterilizes minors?

In other words... if this legislation passes.... it would be allowing minors to be sterilized?

Which could lead to lower world populations. Children should be able to grow up and reproduce, and not have that choice taken away from them. There should be age limits and consent agreements, but not this.

Completely agree. As a growing and new nation, I want to increase my population and be able to have my citizens reproduce as they will.

Betances wrote:

Untecna wrote:Which could lead to lower world populations. Children should be able to grow up and reproduce, and not have that choice taken away from them. There should be age limits and consent agreements, but not this.

Completely agree. As a growing and new nation, I want to increase my population and be able to have my citizens reproduce as they will.

OOCly, your gameside population increases automatically - and there is nothing you can do to decrease your population, make it grow faster or slower (although after about 24 days, when there are 62 million people in your nation, your national population will grow by 5-7 million every day) - while your roleplayed population can be set at will. The World Assembly is not telling you how many people live in your nation

So this is the secret recipe for a successful repeal, huh? No drafting and just rush to submission?

Wayneactia wrote:So this is the secret recipe for a successful repeal, huh? No drafting and just rush to submission?

OOC: No. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=473616

Eluney wrote:

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:Given the existence of 486, we consider the secondary legislation argument sufficient reason to vote in favour of passage of the repeal.

Herrera drinks a sip of mineral water, puts down the glass and clears his throat: “We agree with what was said by the previous representative, so this Delegation will vote in favor of this proposal".

Mr. Carlos Alejandro Herrera.
Permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of Eluney to the World Assembly.

I completely agree with you and vote in favor of the repeal.

[English]
From: The Republic of Brunalis
To: The World Assembly

We consider that there should be specific changes in the revocation resolution

We believe that the stelirization review can be achieved with qualified medical professionals but there must also be consent from both the guardians and the person involved.

In a proven emergency, no approval review would be required to avoid unnecessarily prolonging decision-making.

The Government of Brunalis agrees with the rest of the content of the revocation

We hereby support the repeal of GA # 472 "Ban on Sterilization of Minors etc".

Approve, Notify, Communicate in GA Forum, South Pacific Message Board, and News Factbook of our country.

Yours sincerely: Bruno, President of Brunalis.

[Español]
Desde: La República de Brunalis
Para: La Asamblea Mundial

Consideramos que debe haber cambios puntuales en la resolución de revocación

Consideramos que la revisión de la esterilización se puede lograr con profesionales médicos calificados pero también debe haber consentimiento tanto de los tutores como del involucrado.

En caso de emergencia probada, no se necesitaría pasar por ninguna revisión de aprobación para no prolongar innecesariamente la toma de decisiones.

El Gobierno de Brunalis está de acuerdo con el resto del contenido de la revocación.

Por la presente apoyamos la derogación de GA#472 "Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc".

Apruébese, Notifíquese, Comuníquese en Forum de GA, Tablero de Mensajes del Sur Pacifico, y Factbook de Comunicados de nuestro país.

Atentamente: Bruno, Presidente de Brunalis